> >I am not sure whether we can get > > enough reviewers to guarantee the quality of this type of format > > definition.
I think we have a way to do that, which is to ask both Gen-ART and the Security area for early reviews, right after adoption. This is a problem for many WGs when they touch a security topic. Regards Brian On 07-Jul-21 01:24, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: > > However, with my chair hat on, I am a little bit concern regarding to > > whether we have enough expertise to do this well within ANIMA WG. By > > the definition of ANIMA, we are focusing on autonomic procedures in > > network operation and management. I am not sure whether we can get > > enough reviewers to guarantee the quality of this type of format > > definition. > > ANIMA is chartered to work on BRSKI extensions. > If the WG chairs would prefer to move that work to another WG (IOTOPS for > instance), then I'm sure that a discussion with the ADs could occur. > > This document just uses JOSE. It doesn't extend it in anyway. > You don't need to know JOSE much, anymore than you have to know CMS or COSE > (less). > It also doesn't extend RFC8366, but all the experts on that document are in > this WG. > > An option that the WG could consider is if it wants to merge this work into > an RFC8366bis. There are positives and negatives about such a thing. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
